Association between objectively measured walking steps and sleep in community-dwelling older adults: A prospective cohort study

Noriyuki Kimura; Yasuhiro Aso; Kenichi Yabuuchi; Etsuro Matsubara

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0243910

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 10, 2020
21 Oct 2020 Decision Letter - Gianluigi Forloni, Editor PONE-D-20-10392 Association between objectively measured walking steps and sleep in community-dwelling older adults: A prospective cohort study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Kimura, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses all the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 05 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Gianluigi Forloni Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: "We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Usuki city employees for their efforts in recruiting 238 participants. We thank the TDK Corporation for the development of the wearable sensor, Suzuki 239 Co. Ltd. for their assistance with data collection, and HCL Technologies, Confidential, and Fusa 240 Matsuzaki for database construction and data analysis. We received generous assistance from 241 Kaori Hirano, Megumi Ogata, Mai Kishigami, and Oita University students with the physical 242 measurement and interview procedures." i) We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. ii) Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: " This research was supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [Grant Number 18he1402003]. The founders had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.". iii) Additionally, because some of your funding information pertains to commercial funding we ask you to provide an updated Competing Interests statement, declaring all sources of commercial funding. iv) In your Competing Interests statement, please confirm that your commercial funding does not alter your adherence to PLOS ONE Editorial policies and criteria by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests. If this statement is not true and your adherence to PLOS policies on sharing data and materials is altered, please explain how. * Please include the updated Competing Interests Statement and Funding Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Abstract: The introduction in the abstract makes the reader think that only steps from walking around the house and from fidgeting will be taken into consideration for this study. Since this is not the case, this should be removed. Introduction: Page 4, line 63- the authors mention that only one study has assessed the relationship between MVPA and sleep parameters, however, there have been other studies conducted on the subject matter -Gabriel, Kelley Pettee, et al. "Bidirectional associations of accelerometer-determined sedentary behavior and physical activity with reported time in bed: Women's Health Study." Sleep health 3.1 (2017): 49-55. The authors state that they will focus on daily walking steps since it is a measure of low-intensity activity-is there a citation for this? How are the authors able to discern whether steps taken belonged in the light or moderate-to-vigorous intensity category? The authors may consider not talking about intensity since it is not reporting OR they may consider reporting time spent in light, moderate and vigorous intensity. Methods: Page 5, Line 83- how did the authors ensure “physical and psychological health”? What if they had a chronic disease? Discussion: Page 10, line 191, citation missing for “several studies” which ones? There are several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Keywords: Community is misspelled Page 3, line 54- Remove “almost” Page 9, line 179, nor should be “not” ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243910.r001
Revision 1
5 Nov 2020 Author Response We would like to take this opportunity to express our sincere thanks to the reviewer who identified areas of the manuscript that needed corrections or modification. Based on the instructions provided in the decision letter and comments provided by the reviewers, we have revised the manuscript by modifying the relevant sections in the manuscript. Also appended below are point-by-point responses to the comments raised by the reviewers. We hope that our revisions along with our responses address reviewer’s concerns and that our revised manuscript is now suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Reviewer 1 We thank Reviewer #1 for the critical comments and useful suggestions, which have substantially helped us improve our manuscript. As indicated in our responses below, we have considered each reviewer comment and suggestion and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We hope that our responses and revisions are appropriate and that our revised manuscript is considered for publication. 1. “Reviewer’s comment” Abstract: The introduction in the abstract makes the reader think that only steps from walking around the house and from fidgeting will be taken into consideration for this study. Since this is not the case, this should be removed. “Author’s response” We agreed with reviewer’s comment. We have removed this sentence and added the sentence in the Abstract section, as follows: P 2, line 15- 16 There is increasing evidence that physical activity is associated with sleep quality. 2. “Reviewer’s comment” Introduction: Page 4, line 63- the authors mention that only one study has assessed the relationship between MVPA and sleep parameters, however, there have been other studies conducted on the subject matter -Gabriel, Kelley Pettee, et al. "Bidirectional associations of accelerometer-determined sedentary behavior and physical activity with reported time in bed: Women's Health Study." Sleep health 3.1 (2017): 49-55. “Author’s response” We agreed with reviewer’s comment. We have revised the relevant sentences in the Methods section, as follows: P 4, line 60- 63 To the best of our knowledge, a few studies have reported the relationship between objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous- intensity physical activities and sleep parameters in community-dwelling older adults [15, 16]. 3. “Reviewer’s comment” The authors state that they will focus on daily walking steps since it is a measure of low-intensity activity-is there a citation for this? How are the authors able to discern whether steps taken belonged in the light or moderate-to-vigorous intensity category? The authors may consider not talking about intensity since it is not reporting OR they may consider reporting time spent in light, moderate and vigorous intensity. “Author’s response” Several previous studies reported that walking may be categorized into light-intensity physical activity, as follows: “Whether the association includes low-intensity activity such as regular walking is not known.” Abbott RD, et al. JAMA. 2004;292:1447-1453. “Women may　spend more time doing low and lifestyle intensity activities,　such as walking, household chores, and gardening.”　Lohne-Seiler et al. BMC Public Health 2014, 14:284. “Recent studies have　shown that light-intensity PA (LPA; e.g., housework, gardening,　and casual walking) and sedentary behavior (SB;e.g., television viewing, computer use, workplace sitting,　and sitting in automobile) are also related to health of older　adults.”　Yasunaga A, et al. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2018;16:240. “These activities can include non-exercise leisure-time and life-style activities (e.g.　walking, gardening, etc.) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) (e.g. shopping, housework, etc.), which are typically in the low-intensity range. Research using self-report measures of walking activity indicates that these non-exercise physical activities may be associated with cognitive health benefits.” Varma VR, et al. Hippocampus. 2015; 25: 605–615. Therefore, we classified walking steps into light-intensity activity. However, we agreed with reviewer’s comment that walking steps include the light or moderate-to-vigorous intensity activity. Moreover, in the present study, we have not investigated the intensity of physical activity. Therefore, we have revised the relevant sentences in the Introduction and Discussion sections, as follows: P 4, line 64- 68 In this study, we focused on daily walking steps because engaging in exercise programs is typically difficult for older people because of their physical limitations or health conditions. Walking is a convenient and safe activity for all age groups and accounts for most of the energy expenditure among older people. P 11, line 208- 209 In contrast, we measured daily walking in a large number of older adults. 4. “Reviewer’s comment” Methods: Page 5, Line 83- how did the authors ensure “physical and psychological health”? What if they had a chronic disease? “Author’s response” We agreed with reviewer’s comment. We have added the relevant sentences in the Discussion section, as follows: P 11, line 229- P 12, line 231 Although all participants were decided to be physically and psychologically healthy by physical examination medical interview at baseline, the participants with chronic disease could not be excluded completely from participating in the current study. 5. “Reviewer’s comment” Discussion: Page 10, line 191, citation missing for “several studies” which ones? “Author’s response” We agreed with reviewer’s comment. We have revised the relevant sentences in the Discussion section, as follows: P 10, line 192 Several studies have examined the association between physical function or activity and sleep parameters in older adults [10, 11, 14, 15, 22–26]. 6. “Reviewer’s comment” There are several grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Keywords: Community is misspelled Page 3, line 54- Remove “almost” Page 9, line 179, nor should be “not”Discussion: “Author’s response” We agreed with reviewer’s comment. We have corrected grammatical errors throughout the manuscript. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243910.r002
1 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Gianluigi Forloni, Editor Association between objectively measured walking steps and sleep in community-dwelling older adults: A prospective cohort study PONE-D-20-10392R1 Dear Dr. Kimura, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Gianluigi Forloni Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243910.r003
Formally Accepted
4 Dec 2020 Acceptance Letter - Gianluigi Forloni, Editor PONE-D-20-10392R1 Association between objectively measured walking steps and sleep in community-dwelling older adults: A prospective cohort study Dear Dr. Kimura: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Gianluigi Forloni Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243910.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .